Template:Modernism versus pragmatism: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Modernism versus pragmatism (view source)

Revision as of 06:56, 9 May 2021

611 bytes removed ,  9 May 2021
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 41: Line 41:


Shortcomings in current [[technology]] mean we cannot — ''yet'' — fully solve that problem. We still need humans to make sure the machine operates as best it can, but the further humans are from that central executive function, and the better the algorithm gets, the more humans resemble a maintenance crew: their task is simply to ensure the orderly functioning of the plant. As technology advances, human [[agency]] can be progressively decommissioned.  
Shortcomings in current [[technology]] mean we cannot — ''yet'' — fully solve that problem. We still need humans to make sure the machine operates as best it can, but the further humans are from that central executive function, and the better the algorithm gets, the more humans resemble a maintenance crew: their task is simply to ensure the orderly functioning of the plant. As technology advances, human [[agency]] can be progressively decommissioned.  
{{physics envy quote}}


The modernist narrative focusses on [[Legibility|what it can see]], which is necessarily limited to the ''formal'' inputs and outputs of its own model. There are at least two consequences of this.  
The modernist narrative focusses on [[Legibility|what it can see]], which is necessarily limited to the ''formal'' inputs and outputs of its own model. There are at least two consequences of this.  


Firstly, the modernist [[narrative]] cannot see ''informal'', but often vital, interactions between components of the system that the model does not consider material: random acts of kindness, the jobs the staff do that are not in the [[service catalogue]], the work-arounds that keep the machine going; the ad-hoc tricks that make up the difference between meaningful performance and work-to-rule.
Firstly, [[modernism]] cannot see ''informal'', but vital, interactions between components of the system that are not in its model: random acts of kindness, the starter sales technique, the time spent building relationships, the necessary work beyond the [[service catalogue]], the work-arounds that keep the machine going; the ad-hoc tricks that make up the difference between meaningful performance and work-to-rule.  
 
Secondly, modernism is a ''[[negative sum game]]'': its baseline is immediate, costless performance of the program. Positive variance from this baseline ''is not possible'': the goal is to lose as little energy as possible. As with a Newtonian equation, real-world performance never meets theoretical conditions: friction and imperfection means an inevitable loss of energy and increase in [[entropy]].
 
In Newton’s theory, acceleration equals mass times force. In the practical world, acceleration is inevitably less than mass x force. We know that friction, gravity, heat, entropic energy loss means in the real world, observed A will never be quite amount to M*F. Engineering and environmental control move real A closer to theoretical A, but it is practically impossible for real A to equal theoretical A, and ''theoretically'' impossible to exceed it. Engineering is there for a negative sum game: no amount of engineering, efficiency or insight can on yield an acceleration equal to or greater than M*A.  


The [[modernist]] disposition holds that the same is true in an organisation.  
Secondly, thanks to its [[physics envy]], [[modernism]] is a ''[[negative sum game]]'': its baseline is immediate, costless performance of the program. Positive variance from this baseline ''is not possible'': the goal is ''to lose as little energy as you can''. But friction, gravity, heat, entropic energy loss means in the real world, the system loses energy. We can minimise entropic loss with engineering and environmental control but it remains practically impossible to conserve energy, and ''theoretically'' impossible to create it.  


Human operators create a great deal more [[entropy]] than machines. If the only measurement is flawless performance of an [[algorithm]], humans must be worse at it then machines. There is no credit given to insight, diagnosis, creation of alternative models or narratives comma because in the the modernist framework, there is no such thing as a valid alternative model. Economics is a kind of applied physics. There is no room for alternative facts.
Human operators create a great deal more [[entropy|entropic loss]] than unattended algorithms. If the only measurement is accurate performance of instructions, humans must be worse at it then machines. Modernism can give credit to insight, diagnosis, model revision or reimagination because ''there is no such thing as a valid alternative model''. Economics is a kind of applied physics. There are no alternative facts.
 
{{physics envy quote}}


If it is true that bettering an [[algorithm]] is impossible then it stands to reason: [[meatware]] is expensive and inconstant: the largest risk to the organisation is [[human error]], thus the strategic direction of an organisation’s development is to eliminate where possible the need for human intervention. Where that is not possible, human activity should be constrained by rigid guidelines and policies to reduce the probability of mishap, and monitored and audited to record and correct those errors that do happen top prevent them happening again. To the modernist, malfunction and [[human error]] are overarching business risks.
If bettering an [[algorithm]] is impossible, it stands to reason: [[meatware]] is expensive and inconstant: the largest risk to the organisation is [[human error]], thus the strategic direction of an organisation’s development is to eliminate it where possible. Where that is not possible, human activity should be constrained by rigid guidelines and policies to reduce the probability of mishap, and monitored and audited to record and correct those errors that do happen top prevent them happening again. To the modernist, malfunction and [[human error]] are overarching business risks.


This worldview is one that appeals to many people in business management. Others might find it it rather desolate. But desolation is no argument against it if it is correct.
This worldview is one that appeals to many people in business management. Others might find it it rather desolate. But desolation is no argument against it if it is correct.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/56603"

Navigation menu